corps of engineers in projects related to this have increased by about -- right at $11 million. it affects all types of projects, and i'll give you a few examples. one of which is am pipeline which we are responding to an increased need for natural gas transportation as louisiana refineries expand. one is a grocery store that provides fresh food, especially in our food deserts. another is an expansion of a 100 acre commercial park to create jobs and new office space. the last of which is the st. tamm manny parish drainage project which would help louisiana with its flood protection and protect our communities. this is a matter that is of vital importance. we are not diminishing the need for mitigation and understatementing its importance, but what we are trying to say it should be reasonable and the method we have before we move to the modified charleston method was a good method, but we need to make sure that the modified charleston does not hamper our

growth in louisiana and prohibit us from protecting our citizens and residents from future damage caused by storms and also prosper economic development at the same time. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: and rise in opposition to these very able gentleman's amendment and while i have some sympathy for this issue, and it's not a new one this bill, i believe that more consistency should be brought to the way we evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment would ensure. the charleston method has been utilized for over two decades in various districts and is a quick and inexpensive and consistent methodology for use by the regulated public and the corps. in 2006 and 2007, the new

orleans district worked with its federal and state partners to modify the charleston method reflected the er unique conditions found in south louisiana, resulting in the modified charleston method that our colleagues have suggested. is a e of this method longstanding one in many corps districts. many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential mitigation requirements for their impacts, as well as credits required at mitigation banks. this transparency in corps mitigation requirements has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and determine mitigation costs up front. importantly, costs. up front. costs often that are borne by the federal taxpayer. suspension of the use of the charleston method in corps districts would require that any pending permit application under section 404 of the clean water act and pending mitigation banks, would need to be re-evaluated using a

different assessment tool or methodology in the absence or in the absence of such a methodology use the best professional judgment to determine appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for available credits in mitigation banks. all approved mitigation banks with available credits that were determined by the process would be temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the banks' credits converted to the credit system of the new methodology. these banks were established utilizing the credit system of the charltston method and until a similar credit system can be determined for proposed impact sites it would not be possible to correlate the new requirements in the old credit system. so we're into the weeds on this one. and we know that the difficulty at the edges where the water meets the land, where we have very severe coastal conditions that occur as a result of whether changes -- weather changes and so forth do require us to be more land-planning conscious.

i think that the corps -- i've seen that the work they've done in louisiana, and i appreciate the gentleman's concern about their home state. i think to try to change this in this bill is probably not wise policy and we know the cost of these damaged areas to the taxpayers of the united states. with coastal storms being what they are, we anticipate greater coastal activity and i think that wiser planning is better than moving to a process that i think is less rigorous. so on those by a cease i oppose the gentleman -- bases i oppose the gentleman's amendment but i do have sympathy for their region. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, let's try this again. i believe i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for department of energy, energy programs, fossil energy research and development, and increasing the amount made available -- mr. lynch: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, and also ms. kaptur from ohio, our ranking member, for the great work they've done. in spite of the fact that many members are coming up with can -- up with refining amendments, i do want to acknowledge the great work they've done, for

example, on the manufacturing piece that's in this bill, as well as the harbor maintenance trust fund, which has been amply funded and is so important to a lot of the coastal communities. myself representing the porlt of boston and -- port of boston and a large swath of the south shore of massachusetts, some beautiful cities and towns, i do appreciate the work that they've done. however, there does appear to be a gap in funding with respect to the army corps of engineers and the purpose of my amendment would be to increase funding to the construction account for the army corps of engineers by $20 million. and this increase would of course be offset by decreasing the fossil fuel research account by a corresponding amount. i am fortunate to represent a district that relies heavily and benefits greatly from the proximity to the coast.

and i have wonderful historic, that ful towns and cities , as i say, are benefiting greatly because they're on the coast. they house commercial fishing fleets and host wonderful beaches and marinas and they're vital components of our statewide economy and regional economy. but while these benefits are there, they're also exposed to -- most recent violent coastal storms that have become increasingly devastating in recent years. like many of my colleagues, i've seen firsthand the devastating effects that these much more intense storms have had on our communities. beaches erode and roadways and bridges get washed away. in our case we haven't been hit as hard as places like the district of the gentleman from

louisiana or new jersey or new ork and the superstorm sandy effects. but much of our sea wall infrastructure and protection for our beaches has been damaged considerably. and we've benefited from prior congresses that have made sure that the funding and the to tenance has been there preserve that protection and we are at that point again. it seems like we're having 100-year storms every three or four years now in my district. and i'm sure it's like that in a lot of places across the country. and i think it's entirely appropriate that we balance this out, we rebalance the priorities here by putting $20 million into the construction account for the army corps of engineers while we are removing a corresponding amount from the fossil fuel research account. i think that most of us realize

that the impacts of climate change are at least increasing the intensity of the storms that we've seen in recent years. and we need to provide the army corps of engineers in our communities with the resources they need to protect against these natural disasters and i believe my offset does that in a fitting way. like president obama, i think we need an all-of-the-above energy policy and i'm not here today to debate the cause of global warming or climate change, but temperatures and sea levels are rising and fossil fuel consumption is a contributing factor. so as long as we are forced to rely on fossil fuels we need to also deal with the fallout from our own energy policies. we need to protect our coastal communities from future devastation and for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise to oppose

the gentleman's amendment. i share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our nation's water resources infrastructure, though. in fact, the army corps of engineers has always been one of the top priorities in our energy and water bill. total program level funding is $50 million above the budget request and almost $150 million above the postsequester level. there's very strong member interest in the harbor maintenance activities, though most of these additional funds were included in the operation and maintenance account. even so, construction funding is less than 1% below the president's budget. on the other hand, the bill already reduces funding for fossil energy by $84 million below the fiscal year 2013 level. that's a 16% reduction. ssil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas provide for 82% of our nation's energy needs and we will need to continue to use these valuable energy resources for generations to come.

research conducted within this program ensures we use our nation's fossil fuel resources well and cleanly as possible. in fact, when we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1%, we could power an additional two million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. we simply cannot take a further reduction to this account and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: yes, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. congressman lynch, i think has really thought through this proposal very well. his is a modest amendment and ctually the bill that we are considering is $29,425,000 above the budget request of the administration.

so he is merely conforming his amendment to the initial request. for the record, we anticipate that the department will -- with this change -- spend approximately $420 million this year for fossil energy research and development. i agree with my esteemed colleague from new jersey about the importance of natural gas, for instance. ohio is a state that's benefited deeply from that. a lot of that technology is going very well and the companies are making significant profits. they kin vest some of that in their own -- they can invest some of that in their own advanced development now. and with the additional drilling on public lands for oil and so forth, we are producing more than we have in modern history over the last several years. so i think it's worthy to transfer some of these dollars to the corps. we have over $60 billion worth

of corps projects that are backed up and in terms of job creation, that just rings home across this country because those corps dollars will be put to work in projects that have been backed up from coast-to-coast. i would yield additional time to the gentleman. mr. lynch: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i appreciate her gracious remarks. i do want to point out, though, that since 2010, we've cut $688 million from this account. now, we all -- we all have great respect and admiration for the army corps of engineers. but cutting $688 million since 2010 is reducing their ability to prioritize those probablies around the country that need to be worked on. now, some of those are democratic districts and some of those are republican districts and that's not what this is about. this is about our infrastructure. and so a $688 million cut since

2010 is a serious obstruction for them to do their job. and that's all i'm asking here. i'm asking that we recognize our responsibility and our stewardship, you know, of protecting sea walls and ports and marinas, where they're on the great lakes or whether they're on the atlantic or pacific coast. but just asking that we step up and meet our responsibility in a meaningful way. thank you. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman. i evidently very strongly support his amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lynch: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to finalize, implement or enforce the proposed rule entitled energy conservation standard ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits and identified by regulation identification number 1904-ac-87. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for ive minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. as i talk about this amendment, i want to pause for just a moment and commend the appropriators and the chairman. he's accustomed of me coming down trying to cut 1%, 3%, but

the appropriators have done that work for us. this is $30.426 billion is below, is $2.9 billion below last year's levels. $700 million below the sequester level and $4 billion below the president's request. indeed, it's before the pre-pelosi budget which was $31.5 billion. so as my former colleague in the tennessee state senate used to say, the now mayor of knoxville, he'd quote a tennessee author, if you find good, praise it. i praise the cuts on the front end and i focus my issue on ceiling fans and this administration's interest on overregulating ceiling fans. as many of my colleagues know, ceiling fans and ceiling fans light kits already face

regulation set by the act of 2005. these burden ceiling fan manufacturers with ineffective mandates. however, despite the current mandates, the department of energy is looking to require additional mandates that will impact everything from the angle of the blade shape, airflow, light kit. they are determined to redesign the american fan and have issued a 101-page rulemaking framework document which evalue waits the potential energy savings that new regulations would supposedly provide. we've already seen the federal government stretch their regulatory tentacles into our homes in determining what kind of light bulbs we have to use. now they're coming after our ceiling fans. it's a sad state of affairs with even our ceiling fans aren't safe from this administration. enough is enough.

these new regulations being considered by d.o.e. will significantly impair the ability of ceiling fan manufacturers like hunter fans in memphis to produce reasonably priced highly decorative fans. they will force our constituents to use less energy efficient mechanisms to cool their homes using more energy and it is imperative that we join together and prohibit any funding in this bill from being used by d.o.e. to finalize, implement or enforce new regulations on ceiling fans. and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back the balance of time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: another amendment is currently pending. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chair.

i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. rokita: i rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlelady from tennessee, and like her i also want to thank the appropriators. as a member of the budget committee, our responsibility is to issue top line numbers that we stay within in order to bring down the deficit and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country, not only today but even the worse debt we'll be facing given the current trend we're on in the future. mr. chairman, remember when we were told to get our tires properly inflated and people snickered saying, is this an energy policy? well, at least those ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost. albeit a drop in the bucket. but now in one of its latest efforts, along comes the department of energy and proposes a regulation to impose

destructive and unnecessary energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. and like much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. it's big government run amuck, another example. it's an example of the complete disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations that they issue. the department of energy contends that a certain amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as the gentlelady mentioned and explained. now, of course, that ignores the fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy efficient than other cooling devices like air-conditioners. recently general electric published an article stating that a central air conditioning consumes 5,000 watts of electricity. a ceiling fan consumes 30 watts when operating under similar conditions. that's over 165 times less electricity that's consumed by your typical central air conditioning system. proposed regulations would increase the costs of ceiling fans and reduce the manufacture's ability to

roduce asthetically pleasing systems. this would not -- this would forgo ceiling fanses and shifting to high energy consumption devices. the department of energy's proposed regulations on ceiling fans are absolutely counterproductive. they will encourage more energy consumption. they'll reduce choice and they have the potential to destroy jobs, including in indiana. americans need an energy policy to unleash our economy, not economically destructive dictates from washington bureaucrats. this is another example of the administration double dipping in the pockets of americans using taxpayer dollars to raise the price on consumers, and as such i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: i move to strike

the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's point out nd wish to to our colleague that this would prohibit any funds made available by the act being used by the department of energy to finalize, implement or enforce the proposed rule entitled "standards: ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits" and identified by 1904-ac-87. they're using the data collection process to consider the energy conservation standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits. making them more efficient would reduce carbon output by 22 million metric tons. this amendment would erode the department of energy's effort to curb carbon emissions and save consumers money on their electric bill. the department estimates that the higher standards for ceiling fans will result in

$4.3 billion in undiscounted energy bill savings through 2030. also, i'd be remiss if i don't point out these amendments seek to undercut the administration's rulemaking authority given to them by us, by congress. speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle criticizes the administration for not undertaking rulemaking on other issues and instead issuing guidance. well, now we have rulemaking that allows for public comment and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are still not satisfied. the department is following its esponsibility under the energy policy act of 2005 to regulate ceiling fans' energy usage. you know what, it's not a bad idea. we actually own ceiling fans in our family. and what's interesting about them is, if you have two or three speeds on them, the first speed, which is supposed to be the low speed, is more than we want. and it's very hard to get these fans demonstrated in the showroom sometimes.

if you want to be a responsible consumer, i think it would be really helpful to the buying public to have standards, to be able to have labeling, to know what you're buying. but it's a market that really is -- it's an important market. i would guess it's one that's growing in our economy. but i think it's really important to have this kind of effort that the industry will be able to comment. that's what rulemaking is all about. we can work with consumers. consumers like us can write in. we can make our comments, and overall we get a better product. we get one that's more energy efficient. i know there's a hunter fan company located in memphis, tennessee, so i imagine the gentlelady may be speaking on their behalf and that's ok. that's what we're all here for. but you know, the consumers out there also have a right to try to buy the most energy efficient product. the fan that we bought, the light's too bright in the ceiling. i don't know if you've ever tried to install one of those things. it's not easy to get that off and get the different bulbs in

and all. i think it's an industry that's growing and improving. i would think they could use a little bit of help. so this amendment is anti-consumer. i think it should be defeated. but i admire the gentlelady for ringing it to the floor. i think it would be better for the environment, for the consumers and the companies. they would sell more fans if people have more confidence in their product. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment -- designate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 31 printed -- the clerk: amendment number 31 offered in the congressional record offered by mr. higgins from new york. the chair: the gentleman from

new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. higgins: this bipartisan amendment seeks to stop a flawed plan that would destroy crucial corps projects. the ohio river division is attempting to move key functions performed in buffalo and chicago regions out of their respective states. this is unacceptable. when it comes to protecting, safety, health of our waterways, there's no substitute for having a team of qualified people on the ground. taking key staff out of western new york will only hinder the delivery of high-impact projects already in progress. and any plan to turn the buffalo and chicago districts into mere satellite offices is wrong-headed -- it's wrong a decision to divest in our great lakes. in my community alone, the army corps is overseeing $44 million restoration of the buffalo river. $359 million restoration of the former lindy site among dozens of other projects.

the buffalo district oversees 38,000 square miles from mussina, new york, to toledo, ohio. planning, constructing and operating water projects to reduce flooding, maintain navigation, protect the shoreline and support water quality efforts. failure to see these projects through to completion would not only harm western new york but delays and cost overruns would impact the bottom line of the army corps. mr. chairman, the great lakes system moves more than 160 million tons of cargo a year, supports 227,000 jobs and contributes $33.5 billion to the annual economy. as an engine of economic activity and valuable natural resource, we should be committing more resources to the great lakes, not less. a similar amendment was offered by senators kirk and durbin and was adopted by the senate appropriations committee last week. i thank my colleagues, especially mr. collins, mr. lipinski and ms. schakowsky for

their support of this bipartisan amendment and urge its adoption. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i will support the amendment, but i do have some concerns. of course, we want the corps to take a look at the cost of their operation across the nation to see where they can make savings. we are seeking from the corps information before we make any final decisions, but i'm supportive of their objectives. i just need to take a closer look of financial justification for what they're doing, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. collins: i want to thank my colleague, from higgins from new york, for putting forth this amendment.

he and i stood together in buffalo to talk about the adverse effects this proposal by the army corps of engineers would have on the growth of the great lakes. one of our nation's greatest resources. but this issue is not specific to just western new york and it's not partisan. it's about preserving our great lakes. many of us don't know but there are 4,500 miles of u.s. coastline along the great lakes, making it larger than both the atlantic and pacific coasts combined. and among this huge length of coastline, there are hundreds of projects. many harbors that are critical to navigation and recreation are in serious disrepair. by moving contracting officers, those who are on the ground and require face-to-face contact with the companies doing the actual work, these projects will only fall further into disrepair. it won't save a dollar to move these employees to an office far from the site of a project. if you move these workers to detroit or louisville, some of them working on buffalo or

chicago projects will have to be flown in and stay at local hotels at government expense. how can this possibly save money? common sense would say it's going to be more costly. this amendment is simple and it will prevent funds in this bill from being used for this proposal. it will help maintain the great lakes, which are a great key economic driver to our national economy. i hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment that will ensure the army corps of engineers will provide timely delivery on projects that reduce flooding, protect the shoreline, maintain navigation and support water quality efforts all along the great lakes. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. schakowsky: i move to strike the last word. first, i want to express my thanks to the chairman for saying that he would accept this bipartisan amendment and to my colleagues who have

spoken about it. the decision to eliminate many of the functions from the chicago and buffalo office were done without consultation with the local communities and without seeking the approval of the congress, which is what they are supposed to do. the downsizing just in chicago could cause as many as 200 jobs lost in our area and it certainly could affect the health and safety of our waterways. chicago is the point of entry for -- from the mississippi river to the great lakes and its harbors are a major economic importance, not just to chicago, but to the entire great lakes region, as my colleagues pointed out. a shoreline greater than either the pacific or the atlantic -- atlanta coast. actually, i just learned that from you today. thank you for that important

information. its harbors are of major economic importance to all of us and it assists in the rehabilitation of the chicago shoreline. it also -- from the chicago district office -- leads the fight against the spread of the asian carp into lake michigan. i have very serious concerns about the downsizing of the chicago district and what impact it would have on those efforts and like the chairman i understand the corps' efforts to reduce costs. and our interest in doing that. but the minimization of the chicago and buffalo areas would trade short-term savings with much more significant and .asting long-term costs as my colleague pointed out, a similar amendment was passed in the senate so i urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting us in this important

bipartisan amendment to prevent the army corps from reducing its chicago and buffalo offices. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: yes, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i want to thank congressman higgins for offering this important amendment. and congresswoman schakowsky for her leadership on lakes issues and also to chairman frelinghuysen for his openness to those of us who happen to live in the great lakes region. obviously i rise in support of the amendment. but also just wanted to say on the record, to the corps, it would be wonderful if somebody over at the corps had a map and they took all the watersheds of the great lakes and they put them all together and then the staff for the great lakes would be located somewhere in those watersheds. because right now that isn't the case.

and it causes us all kinds of bloody problems in our part of the world where we do adjoin canada up there, you know. there's another country north of us. and it has been so hard to get them to recognize the coastline that you described. and so this is my moment to vent a little bit on the floor and say, hello, corps, we're out there. i happen to represent the largest watershed in the great lakes and we really need the corps' focus on the most important freshwater system in a thank exists on the face of the earth. 20 -- system that exists on the face of the earth. 20% of the sursfass water is up in our region -- surface water is up in our region and it always seems like it's never together, it's never together. so the gentleman's amendment helps to focus a little bit on this. but the challenge goes beyond just this amendment. and i know the corps will hear us and i know as they talk about restructuring, meaning budget realities threrks view us as a system -- realities,

they will view us as a system that needs to be seen as a hole, -- whole, not just in little pieces and things that happen out there. but rather as a extraordinarily important water system for our continent and for our world. so, i wanted the opportunity to say that on the record and i thank congressman higgins very much for his leadership and thank the chair for his understanding. we in the lakes face our own set of issues and we need the corps' full cooperation. i yield back my remaining time and ask my colleagues to support the higgins amendment. the chair: job -- the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. wamberg of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the chairman. my amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used to carry out section 801 of the energy independence and security act of 2007. which creates a national media campaign to promote alternative green energies. the 2007 energy law directs the department of energy to run a national media campaign to promote alternative energies, encourage energy efficiency and discourage the use of fossil fuels, authorizing $5 million a year. now, promoting green energy technology is really not the . le of the federal government apart from an all-of-the-above

energy plan. and it certainly is not the part -- not part of the core mission of the department of energy. the american people don't need more government bureaucrats to tell them what energy sources they should use. the government needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market and certainly shouldn't be funding advertising campaigns on behalf of private green energy firms which is normally a losing proposition to the taxpayer. this amendment is more than fair. it was included in the last congress' attempt at this legislation and i urge my colleagues to support it and to fund this taxpayer media campaign. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word and i'm in support of the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, grayson number one. the chair: the clerk will .esignate the amendment the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. grayson: this amendment, mr. chairman, expands the list of contractors who are forbidden from contract with the federal government to include such contractors as those who have been convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, etc. this amendment is identical to language that was inserted in the military construction veterans administration and the homeland security appropriation bill business voice vote. since brevity is sometimes an

underappreciated virtue, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve the balance of his time but the gentleman may yield back. mr. grayson: then i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: we accept the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey accepts and yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have. it the amendment is dwreed to -- agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman offer an amendment? >> for the purpose of entering into a colloquy -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. > mr. speaker, -- mr. speaker, i rise today to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from new jersey.

mr. chairman, the gas diffusion plant for many years was the only plant operating in america in which uranium was enriched. and this facility has met the national security needs of the united states since 1952, producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear reactors. on may 24, 2013, it was announced that the facilities of nuclear gases diffusion plant would be transitioned back to the department of energy. resulting in 1,200 lost jobs and a vast need to clean up the area. mr. whitfield: pursuant to the atomic energy act of 1954, the secretary of energy now has full responsibility for decontamination and decommissioning cleanup work at the site. and for reindustrialization of the materials and the facilities at that site. i was pleased that the

secretary recently announced on july 3 requests for offers to utilize the assets, land and facilities at the energy site. as we move forward to finish the legacy cleanup of this plant and, most importantly, to reindustrialize that site, to create new jobs, we are going to need to work with the chairman's committee on a very close basis. i hope we can work with you in the coming years to ensure that we provide the department the ecessary support to accelerate reindustrialization through the request of offers process and also expedite the cleanup. i want to thank the distinguished gentleman from new jersey personally for his commitment in working with us on this, for the job that you have done on the 2014 energy and water appropriation bill you will hope that

continue working with us. mr. frelinghuysen: will you yield to me? mr. whitfield: i'd be happy to yield. mr. frelinghuysen: i look forward to working with my colleague, as i have over the years, my friend from kentucky, mr. whitfield, who is a strong advocate on behalf of kentucky, jobs for kentucky, and the plant. nd we do appreciate the work that the department is doing to reindustrialize the site. we also recognize that the cleanup on the site must get done in a timely fashion and we hope to work with the various stakeholders and with congressman whitfield to ensure that that happens. thank you for yielding. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, thank you and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. barrow of

georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this week marks the beginning of sequestration-represented furloughs in my district. as a result, 4,200 employees will be doing without 20% of their pay for the next few months. also, like many in this house, my district is home to projects caught in the corps of engineers' construction backlog. in particular, the new savannah buff locking dam has been waiting for repairs for 13 years. since congress first authorized them. this bill includes language to allow the federal government to of ase more cars on top the 700,000 vehicles it already owns. my amendment would simply prohinlt the expenditure of funds to purchase more vehicles. i believe there are better ways to spebbeds that money. -- spend that money. i'm serious about cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending and i believe that cutting money should be an end unto itself. it's an opportunity to reduce our deficit and make our government work better. this amendment represents a

relatively small change to the bill but i believe it speaks to a larger principle. it will be an inappropriate use of taxpayer money to purchase more cars when so many folks across the country are being forced out of work and so many critical projects sit untouched. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. to relinghuysen: i rise oppose the gentleman from georgia's amendment. the amendment -- his amendment is overly broad and would prevent the department of energy, the army corps of engineers, the bureau of reclamation, the national nuclear security agency, all agencies covered under our bill from leasing our purchasing any new vehicles. i understand my colleague's concerns with the size of vehicle fleet within some of these agencies. in fact, i share some of those very concerns. that's why our bill actually carries a reporting requirement within the department of energy to report on its vehicle fleet.

however, this amendment would have serious unintended consequences raging from -- ranging from maintenance of corps sites to science and our national labs, some of which are tied to the nuclear stockpile that are involved in protecting our nuclear sites. therefore i must oppose the amendment. i certainly understand his reasons for doing it. i support him in theory but there are some potentially unintended consequences so i must oppose it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. opinion of the -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes voluntary it. for what purpose does reed to. the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 44. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana.

at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- section. the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made available for department of energy, energy programs, department administration and increasing the amount made available for corps of engineers, civil, corps of engineers construction by $2 million. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a bipartisan amendment that re-establishes priorities here. it's similar to an amendment we passed overwhelmingly last year on the same piece of legislation. the energy propeses-water bill. what this amendment does is transfers $2 million out of the department of energy's administrative account and moves that money into the corps of engineers' construction budget. and the reason we're doing this is to move more projects forward, to get that backlog that the corps of engineers have and move forward and open up doors for projects all across the country that are

vital to not only our nation's waterways, our economy, our ability to export, but in louisiana, for example, it would provide an opportunity to move forward on the louisiana coastal area plan which is a coastal restoration plan that's a major flood protection project. so what we're talking about is one penny coming out of administration of bureaucracy in washington, to move that money into actual construction projects. i think when you talk to taxpayers across the country, they are less concerned about having bureaucracy in washington. they want to actually see government get things done. they want to see this backlog get cleared out, and they want to see other projects that are important to our nation's economy move forward and that's what this amendment does. it's a bipartisan amendment. i want to thank my colleague, mr. richmond, mr. cassidy, who've also helped work with this. this deals with projects all across the country that are in a backlog, that can help move our economy forward rather than spending that money on

administration in washington. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: if i may ask a question of mr. scalise. are you seeking money for the overall account or are you seeking a certain amount of money for a project in your neck of the woods in louisiana? mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the way that this amendment is drafted actually would apply nationwide. this would move $2 million out of that administrative account in the department of energy and moving it into the overall corps construction budget so it would be available for the corps of engineers for construction projects across the nation. mr. frelinghuysen: let me thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in opposition to the amendment. let me say i appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal restoration. i know it's a high priority for his district and others around the nation. the bill before us includes

over $5 million to continue studies, engineering, design work and various components of the program. that's nearly 6% of the entire investigations account dedicated to continuing work in coastal restoration louisiana. the committee had to make some tough choices in the bill. while the army corps was a high priority, it was not completely spared. the construction account specifically is slightly below the president's budget request and almost 20% below the fiscal year 2013 appropriations. the corps has numerous projects already under construction that were not included under the president's budget, so unlikely to be funded in fiscal year 2014. while construction funding is trending downward i believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects so they can be completed and the federal government can realize the public safety, economic and other benefits from previous

spending rather than starting new projects. it's unclear to me whether this is a new project, but i take the gentleman at his word this is not a new project. i do oppose the amendment. the reduction would substantially work against our purposes of trying to balance the federal budget and lower the federal deficit and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. richmond: mr. chairman, i would urge everyone to support the bipartisan amendment that's being offered by my colleague, mr. scalise from louisiana, and in just in response to the last comment about reducing the budget and getting our fiscal house in order, there are two ways to do it. one way to do is to make wise

investments that get a wide return on your dollar. this investment alone would secure the coastal area of louisiana, which would prevent the federal government from spending money in future years because of the effects of hurricanes or surge or coastal erosion which the dollar we spend today i'm sure -- i feel very comfortable in saying we'll recoup multiple dollars because of that. if you just look at louisiana and what we've contributed to the nation's economy and to the federal government since 1950 to 2006, the federal government, the federal treasury has received over $150 billion from louisiana. and we do that in a number of ways. if you think about louisiana, you think about the coast we're talking about, we're talking about 33% of the nation's seafood comes from the coast of louisiana. we talk about almost a quarter of the nation's domestic

energy. and you look at -- it's home to the country's largest port system. so when we talk about we're protecting and the $2 million we would spend today and the amount of money we would recoup, i would just say it's probably the prudent thing to do to spend this money so we can continue to protect louisiana and the investments it makes in the country so that we continue to do it. i would also add that the bipartisan amendment simply builds on president obama's 2014 budget request and the administration calls this a high priority construction project. so i would just urge everyone to support this bipartisan amendment and to look at it not as just spending or construction, but it's truly an investment in the future of the country in terms of making sure that our energy production, our seafood that the people in south louisiana continue to have comfort and some protection.

i'd just tell you either we spend it today or we're going to spend it tomorrow in an exponential number because restoring the coast of louisiana is a national priority and it's a national need. if you look at the coast of louisiana, every hour we still lose a football field of land. and at some point we're going to pay for -- my preference would be to pay for it when we're not spending as much. it's almost like that leaking roof. you can pay for it now and just replace some shingle or you can wait a couple of years and replace not just the roof, the shingles, the ceiling, the carpet. i urge you to support this amendment and spend the money now while we can get a great return on our investment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i am rising to

express sympathy with the authors of this amendment, congressman scalise and congressman richmond and your eloquent spokesman for your districts and your -- and you're eloquent spokesmen for your districts and your region. i hope you and the members understand one of the reasons we reluctantly oppose your amendment is because the mark we were given in our bill is so r below what we need to meet all national needs. your proposal is actually a new start if we were using the classification system that we use and as much as we want to fund it, we simply don't have the funds in the bill to do it. the corps has over $60 billion worth. $60 billion of backed up projects that they are not able to complete. it would be the biggest job creator in this country if we could move off the dime and fund those projects. but to take and prioritize

louisiana as a new start over, for example, sacramento that has major challenges with their levee system or st. louis, how does one choose? or the great lakes where we can't dredge ports? and i often tell the story without the dredging in the great lakes pretty soon rather than having a channel that's like this they keep narrowing the channel because we have less and less money, pretty soon it will silt up. we won't get anything through. so we have a problem in our bill in trying to fund everything that is necessary for the sake of the nation. so your proposal is worthy, but why should -- how do we put you in the front of the line when others have been in line and we've not been able to complete their projects? we need to be able to have $60

billion in order to complete the work of the corps with just existing projects that are already in line. so i reluctantly stand here today in a very uncomfortable position that project you're referring to is billions of dollars in costs and starting it now is something we simply can't afford based on the allocation that we were given in our committee. we're below last year. we're below what's necessary for the nation, and we're paying the price from coast to coast. so louisiana is deserving of attention, but so are 49 other states that have projects backed up. i say to the chairman, you know, i completely share your pain in trying to hold the line at completing what is in line and not let anyone else cut the line for their projects no matter how worthy they are. our fundamental problem is we don't have the funds to complete everything that is necessary. so i urge my colleagues to vote

with us in opposition to this amendment as much as i sympathize with its worthiness. it just isn't possible with everything else that's in line ahead of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from ohio yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. cassidy: let's be just be clear. this is not just louisiana. this $2 million will be available nationwide. that said, i rise in support of this amendment. budgets are about establishing priorities and making wise use of scarce resources. we know millions of dollars in planning grant which will be -- it can save billions in hurricane repair. if i may say, there is lots of money in the corps. the fact is the corps has an even larger backlog. and these projects are not just $2 million will complete.

takes $500,000 to begin the nepa process or the sampling of the soil or something like that. small amounts at the beginning can initiate an authorization later on. this is a national issue. let me speak just about louisiana because you could easily speak about your own state. the gasoline that's sold in philadelphia is produced in st. charles parish. if that -- if a hurricane knocks out that petro chemical plant, gasoline prizes rise by -- prices rise by 20 cents in the northeast. now, you can say something similar in ohio. mr. garamendi in california, and others elsewhere. we are not saying initiate a process which completely funds. we're saying give seed money so that place can begin the process where later on we can make a decision with regard to

funding. we can, as mr. richmond said, either spend a little bit now and potentially save billions in the future or in our budget priorities we can say we're going to be penny-wise but pound foolish. i urge passage of the amendment. i thank my colleague for introducing it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. hastings of florida. amendment by mr. garamendi of california. amendment by mr. broun of georgia. amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment by mr. quigley of illinois. amendment by mr. heck of nevada. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 156. the nays are 266. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 155. the nays are 266. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brown of -- mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 165, the nays are 252. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas, ms.

jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed boy voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183. the nays --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184. the nays are 238. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered which the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 196. the nays are 227. he amendment is not adopted. he committee will be in order. he committee will be in order.

the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we the arizona delegation rise today in the wake of the tragic yarnell hill fire that's left our hearts, the hearts of arizonans and the hearts of americans across the country overwhelmed with disbelief and sadness. this was the largest loss of life of first responders since 9/11. the town of yarnel and the people of arizona will never forget and will forever honor the 19 heroes of the elite granite mountain hot shot fire crew who lost their lives in the act of self-sacrificing bravery. out of my deepest respect for these fallen heroes, their families and the communities of prescott, people's valley and yarnell, i ask you to keep them

in your prayers. and i ask you to join me in a moment of silence to honor their courage and sacrifice. the chair: the members will rise and honor a moment of silence. the chair: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the nevada, mr. heck, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by heck of nevada. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 86, the nays are 338, he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.

mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2609, directs me to report that it has come to nos remain lugs thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2609 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand

i believe it was raul la are a doer, a republican from idaho, who has lod led some of the immigration efforts, told the people that the caucus is all over the place. some of them would really like to see something bigger than just the border security bill coming out of the house. and they're all very worried about the next step if they were to pass something. they're particularly worried that a conference committee with the senate would cause them to be forced to pass something that looks like the comprehensive bill that passed last month. host: the "washington times" front page this morning has this headline, g.o.p. steps away from any path to citizenship. and they note that many of the senate republicans who voted against their immigration bill last month said they think a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants is necessary and eventually likely. but in the house that's far

from a majority stance. caller: yeah. i think that's about right. and one of the issues that we have to remember here when we're dealing with the house is that they have had a little less practice in terms of coping with this concept of citizenship and legalization than the senate. the senate -- there are a lot of new members of the senate, for sure, but there are a lot new members of the house, particularly in the republican party. and the senate has dealt with big comprehensive immigration before. they passed a bill in 2006 and they debated a bill for a very long time, several -- two months at least on the floor in 2007 before it died, both of which had a legalization and citizenship exobet. -- component. it's very hard to get republicans on the house side to explain to you how it's possible to allow legalization but not some form of citizenship to anyone who is here in an undocumented status. and i think that if they were to logically carry out that

particular question, they would probably be a lot closer to the senate bill than they think they are at the moment. but it's a difficult question to ask and it's laid within all sorts of passionate and emotional concepts, particularly for some republicans who are in states that have high unemployment rates and their constituents are worried about having their jobs taken away. so it's this bizarre combination of political concerns about what it's going to sound like to their constituents back home and then actually dealing with the policy question. i'm not sure how far they're going to get in the conversation in the conference today mifmente guess is that a lot of that is going to be speaker boehner assuring his conference that he's not going to buck their will. he says he's not going to do like he did at the beginning of the year in terms of turning to democrats to solve the fiscal cliff crisis. that he's going to stick with them and let them work it through on their own. it might take a little more time than the people who want to see immigration reform done this year, but i think that

that's been the big message coming out of the conference, if nothing else for the last several weeks. host: so what about the influence of other republicans? george w. bush is giving a speech today at the bush institute. he former president at a citizenship is going to be pushing for immigration reform. you've seen his brother talk about it. you have the republicans of course on the senate side that have said that they'll -- you know, they want to sit down with house republicans and talk about it. does this have any impact? guest: that's a really good question. when it comes to the former president bush, you know, his position on immigration is pretty clear. it's actually up on the wall in his presidential library. he has -- we had a five-point plan that looked very much like the same plan that president obama put out and that the senate passed. including a guest worker program, path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and lots of border security. so i don't know that that's a huge surprise to any of the members of the house

republicans, but certainly particularly in areas like texas and perhaps even arizona that might have some impact. but the thing that house republican members have told me and others repeatedly is that they really don't want to be pressured by anybody. they are feeling pressure in their own districts. they're trying to figure out the issue. not a lot of them are terribly familiar with it. and they -- the things that they want are the things that have not actually been contemplated very heavily by the senate. so, for example, a lot of them want to have local police officers be allowed to detain and to basically enforce immigration law. this is something that democratshe psident are fiercely opposed to. but the house republicans think that that's actually very fair because they trust their own people in their districts more than they trust the government. particularly under the obama folks. so it's a really difficult path

for any republican with a national profile to try and tell them what toover to do because i feel like -- what to do because i feel like every time i talk to a house republican they're mostly listening to their constituents back home and to their fellow members. host: so we'll be covering, as we told our viewers, the george w. bush speech on immigration here on c-span go. to our website, c-span.org for more details of when that will air and on which network. "the washington post" editorial page weighs in this morning and says, national necessity, mr. bush reminds us that immigration is a bipartisan issue. and then the editorial pages of the "wall street journal" as you probably know has been in favor of some sort of immigration reform effort and they this morning say house republicans in immigration, a g.o.p. choice, a party of opportunity or closed borders? do the politics of this play into this discussion at all from leadership or from the rank and file? guest: absolutely.

it is far more a political question right now than it is a policy question. i think that the members of the house are -- that they don't want to be told what to do by the senate, regardless of what the senate is doing and regardless of what the topic is. already before you even get to the passionate problematic issue of immigration, they're like, you know, a kid brother not going to be following the older brother's point of view. regardless of what it is. but the politics of this are really critical and there are members inside the house republican caucus who really would like to see more immigration in the country, they believe it's good for the economy. this is something the "wall street journal" editorial page has been pushing greatly. it's something that you hear -- the star of the republican party on taxes, grover norquist say, all the time. so there are definitely people inside the caucus who think that it would be a good idea to reform the immigration system such that it's easier on people coming in the future but also on the people that are here

now. it's just that there are a number of members who are reluctant because their own constituents are concerned about the idea of giving a break to somebody who's broken the law and also can quite frankly there's a racial contention to it as well. keep in mind that a lot of these members of the house are in very safe, conservative districts that don't particularly want to see a bunch of essentially hispanics who are poor and have been working under the table all of a sudden be on their way to citizenship. host: all right. appreciate your time this morning. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> former president george w. bush talked about immigration today at a naturalization ceremony in dallas. in remarks, former president bush said the laws governing the immigration system aren't working and hopes there's a positive resolution to the immigration debate in washington.

>> thank you. thank you very much. and welcome to freedom hall. i am incredibly grateful to be able to witness this joyous and uplifting ceremony. it will be inspiring to see people of different ages and different countries raise their right hands and take the oath to become citizens of the united states. all who swear the oath of citizenship are doing more than completing a legal process. you're making a lifetime pledge to support the values and laws of america. the pledge comes with great privileges, it also comes with great responsibility. for some of you, today comes

after a long and difficult journey. for all of you, this is a defining moment in your lives. america's your country, it is more than a home. i welcome you to this free nation, i congratulate you and your families and it's an honor to call you fellow americans. our immigrant heritage has enriched america's history. it continues to shape our society. each generation of americans of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character. and adds vitality to our culture. new comers have a special way of appreciating the opportunities of america and when they seize those opportunities our whole nation benefits. in the 1790's, an imdwrant from

ireland -- immigrant from ireland designed the white house. i'm familiar with the place. [laughter] he did a fine job. he also helped build the capitol. in the 1990's, 200 years later, an immigrant from russia helped create the internet search engine google. in between new citizens have made contributions in virtually every professional field. and millions of newcomers have strengthened their communities through their hard work, through their love of family and through their faith. we're a nation of immigrants and we must uphold the tradition which has strengthened our country in so many ways. we're also a nation of laws and we must enforce our laws. america can be a lawful society

and a welcoming society at the same time. we can uphold our traditions of assimilating immigrants and honoring our heritage of a nation built on the rule of law . but we have a problem. the laws governing the immigration system aren't working. the system is broken. we're now in an important debate in reforming those laws. and that's good. i don't intend to get involved the politics or the specifics of policy, but i do hope there is a policy of resolution to the debate and i hope during the debate that we keep a benevolent spirit in mind and we understand the contributions immigrants make to our country. we must remember that the vast

majority of immigrants are decent people who work hard and support their families and practice their faith and lead responsible lives. some willingly defend the flag, including two who are about to take the oath here today. at its core, immigration is a sign of a competent and successful nation. this says something about our country, that people all around the world are willing to leave their homes and leave their families and risk everything to come to our country. their talent and hard work and love of freedom have helped us become the leader of the world. our generation must ensure that america remains a beacon of liberty and the most hopeful society the world has ever known. we must always be proud to welcome people as fellow

americans. our new immigrants are just what they've always been -- people willing to rissing everything for the dream of -- risk everything for the dream of freedom. america remains what she has always been -- the great hope on the horizon. a promised land. we honor the heritage of all who come here. no matter where they come from. because we trust in our country's genius for making us all americans, one nation under god. it's a joyful day for you all and it's one you'll always remember and so will i. in a few moments we will share the same title, a title that has meant more to me than any other title. i've had a lot. [laughter] and that would be citizen of the united states. i congratulate you and ask od's blessings on you.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> and house republicans are meeting now. the house is in recess while that meeting is under way. when they return, more debate on amendments to the energy and water project spending bill for next budget year. the house bill provides just over $30 billion, 9% less than this year, and 12% less than the president requested. the administration says the president will veto the bill if sent to him as-is. live coverage when members return here on c-span. >> the problem was that darwin did not understand and that's his blunder, that he did not understand that with such a theory, natural selection could never have really worked. because, you know, imagine you have a population of a million white cats and one black cat. and suppose that being a black cat does provide you with some

big advantage, yes? but in this blending theiry, you know, you mix things like gin and tonic, the black cat mates with a white cat, you get a gray cat. the gray cat mates with another white cat. you get a pailer shade of gray cat. and this thing just gets diluted and diluted, that black advantage, you know, will disappear and never appear again. >> on "afterworded." exploring the work of five scientists and the mistakes each made on the way to their historic achievements. aturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> our collection begins with the beginning of cinema. the earliest film that we have in our collection comes from 1891. this is a camera test that was produced by the thomas edison company. it's part of a series of

experiments that edison and his engineers engaged in the early 1890's. where our collection really begins, though, is in 1893, with first films that were registered for copyright. what edison did is he exposed the negative for the record of a sneeze on strips of photographic contact paper, affixed them to a cardboard backing and sent it into the library to be registered as a photograph. now, you have to think about this for a moment. because we do all the time. the pamer -- the paper print collection, as it came to be known, in that sense really was an historical accident. the name has been lost in the midst of time but we're very grateful for what ever library bureaucrat decided that it would be ok to register this as a photograph. >> see more sunday at 7:00 p.m.

eastern and pacific, part of american history tv. very weekend on c-span3. boston police commissioner edward davis told senators today that the f.b.i. needs to share terrorist threat information more frequently with local law enforcement. he also said improvements in communications technology are needed and cell phone service was, quote, rendered completely useless as a means of communication during and after the april marathon bombings. his comments came during a senate homeland security and government affairs committee hearing.

>> hearing will come to order. good morning, everyone. good morning to our witnesses and those who have joined us. those seated and those especially who are standing. a little less than three months ago the city of boston, where our oldest son christopher went to college, city of boston suffered a horrific terrorist attack during the 117th boston

marathon. ironically he was there. not as a runner, although he is a runner. he was actually there for the race. a lot of people came in from across the country to m.i.t. and other schools to be there and help be part of the celebration. the attack claimed the lives as we know of three observers and injured close to 300 people. as the events of april 15 unfolded, we wrestled with the fact that we were witnessing the first successful terrorist bombing on u.s. soil since september 11. just as we did in the aftermath of 9/11, we must learn from the boston marathon bombing. and that is why this committee has set out to unearth the lessons learned from this act of terrorism. at a future time this committee will look at whether this tragedy could have been prevented. later this year we'll be looking at that. however, today's hearing will focus on the emergency response to the events that occurred on april 15, 2013.

we will examine the preparations made by the city of boston and by the commonwealth of massachusetts to deal with the crisis of this nature. we'll also assess how the city, the state and federal the nment responded once street was rocked by the explosions. for more than a decade our country has worked to promote effective emergency response systems that help cities and states to mitigate the effects of terrorist attacks. in the years since 9/11, we've learned that it takes preparation, it takes training, it takes effective leadership and a coordinated response plan to minimize the impact and devastate caused by disaster. by all accounts, boston had many of these elements in place on april 15 and lives were saved as a result. today's hearing will take a step toward identifying the lessons learned from the preparedness for and response to the marathon attacks.

we will look at what worked and what we could have done better and how what happened in boston can help prepare communities across the country to deal effectively with emergencies. to help shed light on the lessons learned from the attack we have with us three key officials who were on the ground on the day of the attack. we're also joined by an emergency management expert who has studied the response to the marathon bombing. we look forward to hearing from each of you and working with you and others in the coming weeks and months to strengthen our preparedness and response systems across the united states. as dr. coburn joins us i'll close with this, my colleagues have heard me say probably more times than they want to count, one of my core values is to focus on excellence in everything we do. and i'd like to say everything i do i know i can do better and the key for us is if it isn't perfect, make it better. as well as a lot of people

responded, in fact, people responded on the day of the disaster, the tragedy in boston, we know we can do better. and the key is for us to figure that out, to take lessons learned where we can. with that, dr. coburn, welcome. >> thank you, senator and apologize for being late. welcome to each of you and thank you for what you do. i will have a full statement for the record. i look forward to hearing your comments and your testimony as well as asking you some pertinent questions about what we've done in the past, what's helped and what hadn't and what has been effective and what has not. thank you. >> thank you. dr. johnson. i always call him dr. johnson. he's not like me. he's like me, he's a regular guy. we're going to briefly introduce the witnesses and ask each of you to share with us your statement and then we'll have others show up on our side and have a good conversation. our first witness is mr.

richard sorino. prior to this appointment mr. serino serve as the chief of boston e.m.s. and assistant director of the boston public health commission. he served as an incident commander for over 35 mass casualty incidents and for all of boston's major planned events including the boston marathon. we thank you for joining us today and for your service. we look forward to your testimony. the next witness is curt schwartz. mr. she schwartz is the undersecretary for homeland security and emergency management for the commonwealth of massachusetts. he's also the director of the massachusetts emergency management agency and serves as the homeland security advisor to massachusetts governor duvall patrick. he served as assistant attorney general and chief of the criminal bureau in massachusetts. mr. schwartz has also served as police officer and as emergency technician and we thank you for joining us today.

and for your services to the people of the commonwealth of massachusetts. next, mr. ed davis, snice to see mr. davis, currently commissioner of the boston police department. mr. davis became the commissioner in december, 2006, after serving as a superintendent to the lowell police department for 12 years. do they have a marathon in lowell? >> [inaudible] >> ok. he's been in law enforcement for 35 years. and on the day of the boston -- the marathon bombing, the boston mayor appointed police commissioner ed davis as the head of the unified command, putting him in charge of the overall response effort. and commissioner davis, we want to welcome you and again thank you for your service. our final witness is dr. arthur kellerman, an expert in disaster management. dr. kellerman is vice president and director at rand health, prior to holding this position he was professor of emergency medicine and society dean of

health policy -- associate dean of health policy. he was a chairman of the department of emergency medicine and the center for injury controlal rollins school of public policy, public health. his research focuses on public health preparedness, injury prevention and emergency health services. dr. kellermann we thank you for joining us today. i believe dr. coburn -- [inaudible] we're glad you could join us and glad that -- [inaudible] now we have four on our side, four on your side. i think we're ready to go. man-on-man, something along those lines. you're invited to give us your statement. you can feel free to summarize it. your entire statement will be part of the record and with that, mr. serino, you're our leadoff hitter. thank you. >> thank you. chairman, ranking members and members of the committee, good morning.

on behalf of secretary napolitano, welcome the opportunity to be here to discuss the boston marathon bombing. as mentioned i was in boston that tragic day in april, celebrating patriot's day in high hometown. so i'm here as a bostonian and a former paramedic. on april 15, patriot's day, and the boston marathon, come together to create a day like no other in boston. we pause to celebrate our heritage and our streets filled with millions of residents and visiters from down the block and around the world. for most of my life i worked those same streets for boston e.m.s., ending a 36-year career as the chief of the department in 2009. there were many nights that i went home proud to be part of the boston first responder team but never more proud of them and the residents in my town that day in april. while one moment we saw the terror and brutality and the next moment in our community we saw the community's love and

compassion. we saw our emergency medical technicians, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, emergency managers, spring into action and perform what they do heroically. as tip o'neill used to say, all politics are local. we also know that all disasters are local. in boston -- and boston was no exception. but fema is powered to support communities like boston in their efforts to prepare for and respond, to recover from, mitigate, whatever hazards they may face. as a medical incident commander in boston for over 35 mass casualty incidents and for all the city's mainly events, including mar on thises, i can assure you that planning and coordination at the local, state and federal level played a ritical role in ensuring response. i'm also here to express and discuss how fema in part played a role in make the people on

the ground more people ared that day. on april 15, americans witnessed the strength of the whole community. people coming together to help each other and make our collective response that much ore effective and efficient. the communities' approach to emergency management. we must leverage all of our resources and tap into the collective strength of our citizens in times of crisis. that april day we saw how fema's approach to national preparedness helped empower and strengthen the whole community, including the city of boston and the commonwealth of massachusetts. through our preparedness resources, including our training exercise, technical assistance and preparedness programs, we helped ensure that the people who responded to had the tools and equipment to be effective. immediately following the event, fema collaborated with our law enforcement, public safety and federal partners were were ready to help when the president issued a disaster declaration for the affected

communities. many of the capabilities demonstrated that day and the immediate aftermath were built, enhanced and sustained through fema's preparedness grants. as former paramedic and chief, i can attest to the importance of preparing our public safety, emergency medical, emergency management personnel and the public for all-hazard contingencies. both boston and massachusetts invested federal grant funds and systems that were critical in the response, including helping stand up emergency patient tracking system, a web-based application that facilitates incident management and the system made a difference on april 15. boston and massachusetts fema preparedness grants to invest in mass casualty medical supplies and equipment. they were critical and crucial in responding to the bombings' survivors. the massachusetts states used infrared imagery to search for, locate and apprehend surviving bombing suspect. these grants were also leveraged for onsite security and protection including much of the equipment that was used

during the event such as bomb robot x-ray equipment and others. first responders from boston and across the country planned, trained and exercise support from fema, making them more equipped for communities during realworld incidents. since 2000, thousands of boston area responders have received training from the emergency management institute, the united states fire academy and fema partners. boston also used funds, fema funds, to train swat teams, to better integrate bomb technicians and tactical operations and critical capability that was demonstrated in boston. medical personnel were trained and exercised in how to respond to a mass casualty incident. it was no accident that not a single hospital in the city was overwhelmed with patients in the aftermath of the bombing. it was no accident that patients were appropriately treated, triaged and transported in an orderly manner to appropriate hospitals based on their needs. all these exercise and training

sessions allow us to allow key personnel to deliver critical -- to allow key personnel to develop critical relationships. as the saying goes, you never want to be exchanging business cards at the scene of a disaster and people knew each other well beforehand. fema prides self on continually improving our approach and focusing on strengthening collective preparedness to meet the evolving threats. we know that we can never eplace krystle campbell, martin richard or sean col yea -- sean collier. we take solace in the fact that a collective approach and the years of planning we did as a nation on the local, state and federal level helped first responders on the ground that day and in fact save lives. we also owe it to those who we lost and those who were injured to keep improving. we will work with all the partners across this great country to honor and to continue moving forward. mr. chairman, senator coburn,

members of the committee, i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you. thank you very, very much for that testimony. mr. schwartz. >> good morning. on behalf of governor patrick i thank you for this opportunity to share thoughts on the public safety response to the boston marathon bombings and the ensuing manhunt that together resulted in the deaths of four people and injuries to hundreds more. the response to the marathon bombings once again demonstrates the value of our investments in local, state and federal homeland security. within seconds of the bomb blast, an array of personnel, resources and capabilities, many funded with federal homeland security grant dollars, were mobilized and deployed. first responders, aided by the public, swiftly provided onscene emergency medical care to the injured and the e.m.s. providers followed established plans to triage and transport the wounded to area trauma

centers. our trauma centers were prepared and followed depifting -- existing mass casualty plans to swiftly and effectively treat the wounded. indeed, at least two of our trauma centers report that critically injured patients were in operating rooms within just 15 to 18 minutes of receiving them in their emergency departments. tactical and other specialized teams, many of which deployed into boston under established mutual aid agreements, conducted monitoring, searched for additional explosive devices, secured our regional transit systems and other critical infrastructure, established a large security zone and secured the crime scene. a forward command center was established first on the street and then in a nearby hotel. political and public safety leaders began communicating with the public. through alerting systems, social media and tradition alameda. the boston police and supported by the state police working with our two fusion centers

immediately launched a criminal investigation and in only a matter of hours combined their efforts and resources with those of the joint terrorism task force as the f.b.i. took charge. the speed by which boston's public safety agencies responded were supported by regional, state and federal partners is a test am to outstanding leadership and smart homeland security investments. the boston marathon passes through seven cities and towns and three counties before ending on boilston street in boston. for our local regional -- for our local, regional and state public safety officials, the marathon is one of our greatest annual events, drawing close to a million spectators and we appropriately dedicate substantial planning and operational resources to protect as best we can the runners and spectators and the eight -- in the eight host cities an towns. these extensive planning and preparedness efforts are intended to ensure readiness to respond to any and all unexpected hazards that threaten health, safety or

property. on april 15, the public safety community was prepared. as we have done for many years, a multiagency, multidisciplined team spent months developing the operational plans for this year's marathon. we did worst-case scenario planning, planning for a wide array of incidents and events that might impact the marathon and communities. in early april, we conducted a comprehensive table top exercise to ensure our readiness. on race day, the state's emergency operations center hosted an 80-person multiagency coordination center that was staffed with representatives of the police, fire and e.m.s. agencies, of the eight cities and towns along the course, along with a dozen other key state and federal public safety agencies. the operation center was also connected to emergency operation centers and all -- in all eight cities and towns and first responders along the course and command-level personnel from all local, state and federal public safety agencies were using

interoperable channels on portable radios to maintain effective communications. along the course, local, regional and state tactical teams, hazardous materials response teams, explosive ordinance disposal teams, the national guard civil support team, mobile command post and state police helicopters were deployed as part of an all-hazards operational plan. in short, we were prepared and our high levels of preparedness were due to investments made in collaboration with governor patrick's administration over the past years using federal homeland security grant dollars, a longstanding commitment to multiagency, multidiscipline and multijurisdictional training and exercises throughout the state. a strong record of collaboration, coordination, and cooperation by public officials and public safety leaders and unwavering 4/7 commitment to homeland security by all local, regional, state

and federal, public and private stakeholders and lessons learned from responses to hurricanes, tropical storms, blizzards, i.c.e. storms, floods, tornados and a massive water system thailure -- failure that have resulted in the commonwealth receiving 16 presidential disaster declarations since 2005. even as we work our way through a comprehensive after-action review process, several common themes stand out as we assess our response. foremost, there is a clear correlation between the effectiveness of response operations and local regional and state investments in training, exercise programs, incident command system, building -- sustaining specialized capabilities, operating emergency operations centers, as well as our longstanding focus on developing regional response capabilities. there are several other key factors that contributed to the effectiveness of response

operations. the response relied heavily on specialized capabilities that have been built and sustained through our homeland security grant programs. the response to the bombings was augmented through pre-existing mutual aid agreements. interoperability was a huge success story. the millions of dollars that we have spent over the past years on interoperability ensured effective communitycation. we benefited from a history of using preplanned events like the marathon as reallife opportunities to exercise and utilize our homeland security capabilities and to strengthen personal and professional relationships. we also benefited from investments in regional exercise programs such as the urban shield exercises cubblingted by the boston urban -- conducted by the boston urban area security initiative. the collaboration across agencies, disciplines and jurisdictions was immediate and extraordinary.

existing strong relationships between the commonwealth fusion center, the boston regional intelligence center, and the f.b.i.'s joint terrorism task force allowed the state police and boston police department to quickly integrate into the postbombing investigation that was led by the f.b.i. the support from the federal government was immediate and effective on the law enforcement side. every manageable federal agency dispatched personnel and resources and on the emergency management side, fema and the department of health and human services had senior people in our command center in boston only hours after the bombings, including deputy serino. local and state public safety agencies effectively communicated with the public through social media, reverse 911 systems, press releases, press conferences, emergency alerting small phone apps and for the first time in massachusetts we utilized the new wireless emergency alert service. and the response by the public

to the bombings and the ensuing hunt for the suspected terrorisms -- terrorists was nothing short of incredible. the public heeded requests and directions from governor patrick, mayor in a knitow and their public safety leaders, including the unresidented request on april 19 that residents of boston, watertown and four other communities remain indoors. in closing, as previously mentioned, we are in the process of conducting a comprehensive local, regional and state after-action review. at the end of this process an after-action report and correction plans will be published. we will it continue to identify what worked well, where there is need for improvement and gaps that need to be addressed through training exercises, planning and homeland security investments. even as we move through the after-action process, i can confidently state that our investments made with homeland security and dollars undoubtedly enhanced our capability to respond to these tragic events.

thank you. >> thanks so much for joining us. thanks for that testimony. very much. mr. davis, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, chairman carper, ranking member coburn, distinguished members of the committee. on behalf of mayor thomas menino, i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the impact of the terrorist bombing at the boston marathon on patriot's day, april 15, 2013. on that day at 2:50 p.m., two bombs exploded 12 seconds and 550 feet apart, near the finish line of the boston marathon. two terrorists killed three people at the scene. 8-year-old martin richard and -- ear-old lumbings i linzy lew linzy and 29-year-old krystle campbell at the finish line. there were multiple amputations. every ambulance and police transport vehicle available transported nearly 300 people to world class hospitals.

within 22 minutes, the scenes were cleared and a 12-block perimeter was set. all 19 victims admitted in critical condition survived due to exceptional medical care and the use of turn kits by civilians and first responders. the perpetrators were identified in video footage and the photos were publicly released on thursday. thursday evening, april 19. the release of these photos smarted a rapid chain of events -- started a rapid chain of events. the execution of m.i.t. police officer sean collier, a carjacking and pursuit that ended in watertown. a shootout with the bombers leading to the critical injury of officer richard donohue. one terrorist was killed and the other fled. a massive manhunt for czar ensued in a -- zark ensued in a 20-block perimeter. it began in watertown and extended to all of boston, as well as house-to-house searches

throughout watertown. he discovery and arrest of . rn this was due to training, an informed public and cooperation and information sharing on the line by local, state and federal agencies. i'd like to thank president obama and his administration, particularly the department of homeland security and the department of justice for the invaluable assistance boston received before, during and after this tragic event. preparedness training provided through the federal funding set up framework for multiple jurisdictions to work with one another in a highly effective manner. these agencies, including e.m.s. and medical personnel, utilized federally funded urban shield training, exercises and several tabletop exercises to collaborate scenarios similar to those that occurred during the investigation. the importance of this training

is best he will straighted in the efficiency and success of the response and subsequent investigation. these trainings and testing procedures reveal operational issues and allowed to us correct them prior to april 15. funding also provided highly trained analysts that were critical to the department's daily decision making, intelligence gathering, deployment and information flow, coordination and communication with law enforcement and other first responders. boston also received important technology that would not be possible without the federal funding. command posts, armored vehicles, robots and other safety equipment contributed to the safety of my officers and other officers in the boston area and the success of the investigation. while all agencies, trainings and equipment worked as seamsly as possible on the ground, there's a need for improvement in our communication and information sharing with our federal partners. in the aftermath of the boston bombings, the f.b.i. improved information sharing but policies and practices for information and intelligence sharing must be consistent

across all jttf's. the current language should be reviewed, including its restrictions and suggested changes to the language and practices that members of the major city chief's association belief need to be addressed. chiefs want to strengthen the partnerships. for example, the association proposes regular briefings by federal agencies on any and all threats to the community. these revisions are critical as we all work to prevent further violent extremist attacks in this country. we are also meeting with the senate intelligence committee to examine how best to share classified threat intelligence and other matters that i cannot address in an open hearing. another challenge that occurs moodly after the explosions was the overload to the screll phone system. -- cell phone system. they were rendered completely useless as a means of communication at the scene. the capacity of the cell phone company was overrun by public usage, forcing first responders to rely exclusively on radios.

based on this experience, satellite phone technology is not effective because of command post being inside. communications assistance from the department of homeland security is an example of how this committee has made a difference. the d.h.s. office of emergency communications conducted an exercise during a previous boston marathon to test and train for communications an interoperability. our emergency radio communications systems worked without incident, even though all cell phones went down during the cry sills. in the past, police, fire and e.m.s. personnel would not have been able to communicate because of different radio systems. i want to reiterate that law enforcement need as common and secure radio bandwidth in a public safety spectrum dedicated exclusively to public safety use, as it is the only way to communicate during an event of this magnitude. we thank congress for approving the d-block and look forward to working with firstnet to implement this long overdue

legislation. boston and our partner agencies rose to the challenge we faced and in large part were successful based on the support and assistance from the community. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss, reflect and provide lessons learned that may assist my colleagues across the nation and in the world. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. davis. dr. kellermann. >> chairman carper, ranking member coburn, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today. i'm mark kellerman jen in, i'm an emergency physician and i'm not from boston. we've all heard the adage, it's cky than good. boston's responders were both lucky and good. that's why so many victims survived. several chance factors worked to the rescuers' favor, most notably when, where and how the attacks occurred. the boston responders were also

very, very good. bystanders, runners and spectators played a key role, particularly in the first minutes after the attack. a few years prior to the attack, boston e.m.s., fire and police personnel studied how london, madrid, mumbai and other cities had handled their terrorist attacks. what they did swl, -- well, what didn't go well, and they adjusted their plans to respond to lessons learned in those cities. and incorporated it into their plan. boston's hospitals did a great job because they were prepared to do a great job. they reacted with speed and precision because everyone knew what to do. that's how disaster plans work. but these observations lead to an important point. fact that boston was lucky and good does not mean that the next american city that is hit will be equally lucky or equally good. we cannot assume, based on boston's performance, that other u.s. cities are prepared to manage a terrorist attack of similar, much less greater

magnitude. in fact, there's ample reason to worry. across the nation emergency room crowd something as bad as ever. it not only limits search capacity, it compromises patient safety on a day-to-day basis. some communities and some hospitals have taken their eye off the ball. and not every community has the spirit of boston where health and public safety work together as a team. now, disaster preparedness is largely a state and local responsibility but the federal government has an important role to play. your letter of invitation asked that i specifically comment on two areas. research and grant making. i'll address research first. and then grants. last year rand published the first ever inventory of national health security research funded by civilian government. u.s. the current portfolio is heavily skewed toward biological threats. 2/3 of the studies, 1,000

different projects address that topic. while natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados were the focus of only 10% of studies. terrorist bombings, 4%. one reason for the heavy coverage of one threat versus the others is that the agencies today don't have a simple way to determine who's funding what or to prioritize which questions are most urgent for responders in the field. as a result, we're not getting top value for our dollar. now, rand's work has been largely concentrated in h.h.s. rather than d.h.s. so i can't speak specifically to d.h.s.'s approach. but i can tell you based on our prior work and experience with grants that performance measures that focus on what's been bought and what's been taught aren't as useful by and large as those that meriwether states and municipalities are building the core capabilities they need to respond to a disaster or a large scale

attack. let me cite an example from the world of public health. it's one thing to ask states and municipalities to self-report if they've established a 24-hour-a-day dedicated phone line that health care workers can call to report a potential biological threat. it's quite another to independently determine if that phone line gets answered at 2:00 in the morning, how long it takes for somebody to come back with information and whether the advice that's offered makes sense. the first is a capacity, the second is a capability. disaster drills are another issue. expensive prescripted exercises, whether they're run by the hospital or in the community, are substantially better than nothing, but they're less useful than assessing capabilities that you can do with inexpensive, no-notice drills, tabletop exercises, and systemic learning from real-world events. small as well as large. now, the goal of these is not

to make hospitals or communities or states look bad. but to help everybody elevate their game. so they'll be ready when the big one happens. congress can help by encouraging federal agencies to promote teamwork at the local, the state and the federal level and by focusing on practical measures that test and improve the capability to respond. now, here's my bottom line. boston responders deserve our praise. but let's do more than pat them on the back. let's follow their example. boston learned from the experiences of london, madrid and mumbai. the rest of us can learn from boston. thank you. >> thank you, dr. kellermanen in and thank you. i just want to start off and before i ask a question, and speak maybe for myself, maybe for my colleagues as well. the idea, the thought that this terrible tragedy occurred,

three people were killed and died, declared dead on the scene, everybody who made it, roughly 300 people who made it to a hospital, lived. some of those people had no pulse. and they were saved. they're alive today. some of the lives, many of the lives will be changed forever. hopefully they'll continue to have the kind of support to move on in their lives as they receive support of a different kind. but the team of paid professionals, volunteers, bystanders who pulled together s one is just extraordinary. when we gather in the senate chamber later today to vote, right over the head of the presiding officer in the senate and in the house, just about

the only latin words i know, e pluribus unum. from many, one. in boston, from many, one. extraordinary. thank you for remind minding us of that. . the road to improvement is always under construction. everything we do, we know we can do better. i'm going to ask each of you to give us an example of one lesson from the tragedy in boston that can be exported, should be exported, to other communities, other cities in our country. give us one really good example of what can be exported. >> one is to ensure the traping and relationships are done ahead of time. i think using the special events to plan -- as planned

disasters, if you will, are absolutely key. because every community, large and small, across the country, has large events, whether it be, recently the fourth of july, i happened to be in boston on the fourth as well, and building those relationships during a special event because you know you're going to have numbers of people who are going to be concentrated, you know you're going to have a lot of different groups of people coming together and you've got to be able to, for example, fourth of july marathon you know people will get sick and injured, maybe not that quantity, but building that, testing that, making sure people the training and exercises and eximent to do that. so taking the lessons learned from that, that is a whole community approach, bringing the different partners together. as i mentioned, it was no accident that people went to different hospitals. it was no accident that they were treet on scene. it was no accident that they used tourniquets because that's

the training and the exercise that happens both at the special events using those, incorporating them into which we do each and every day and that's been being done in boston for years and should be done across the country. >> thank you. mr. schwartz? >> i'll build on that in addition to the training and exercises and the worst case scenario planning, we have to translate, and we do in boston, did for the marathon, do for july 4, we have to translate that into worst case scenario response capabilities. it's one thing to plan for worst case scenario but on game day you need to be ready to act very quickly. so on marathon day, we had all of the operational capacity across eight cities and towns to respond to these worst case scenarios. we had a multiagency coordination center stood up, 80 participants, dozens of

agencies, and across, as i said, in my prepared statements, across all eight cities and towns, we had all sorts of resources that many people would say, why are they out there? this is a marathon? why do they have swat teams, ordinance disposal teams, canines, helicopters, monitoring, it's all very expensive to deploy. that's building that cors case scenario operational capacity and capability so that when the bombs went off, there wasn't a delay, the reaction was immediate, the response was immediate. just building on the worst case scenario planning to be able to implement that planning on a moment's notice. >> thank you. mr. davis? >> senator, my colleagues mentioned training and equipment and being prepared, i think those are the two most important things, i'm going to talk a bit about communication,

not radio communication, i've addressed that in my statement. but communication with the community. >> we installed a statewide 800 mega hearts capabilities, it took a while to stand it up, got it straightened out, do you use a similar system? >> there is an 800 system used by the state police but we are still in the 400 u.h.f. area. we have cobbled together a system that works very well, being able to watch all the different agencies together. but because of the danger of losing these frequencies in the near future we need to put a plan together to add to that capability. but let me speak about social media and the old aback that you can't establish a relationship during a crisis. we have a significant presence on social media where we've engaged not only in a one-way communication but in a dialogue with people in the community about all sorts of issues day

in and day out. we were able to use social media effectively in the minutes after the blast to inform people as to where they could go, what happened, where they could meet loved ones. there was an enormous amount of upset in the community. we used social media to tamp that down and we used it to do outreach to the community to provide us clues and video and photos of the bombers. then we used it to correct things that had been reported badly by the media. so i guess my point is, a substantial investment in the utilization of social media to do direct outreach from public safety organizations to community can really help in any event that happens like this. when the cell phones go down, texts do not. we were able to reach people immediately through systems that are funded publicly -- funded in the private sector but utilized by the public sector very well. >> thanks.

doctor? >> as the medical guy, i'd say it's important that the medical team be part of the planning, people get hurt and we have to be on the same team to make that work. the other thing they emphasized, you don't prepare and put everything in the closet or garage and lock it away. the best systems are those that work well day to day and you raise your game from what you're doing on a day-to-day basis. the most effective city, most effective systems in the country are those that are high performers every day of the week, every day of the career, not just on the day of the disaster. >> we've been joined by a umber of other colleagues, the senator from new jersey, tam my baldwin who comes to us from the house of representatives, and served with distinction in the general assembly of her

state. two attorneys general, like bookends here. dr. johnson a successful business person from wisconsin has joined out. tom coburn who has had any number of careers including health care provider, successful business person. i yield to him now for his questions. >> thank you. chief davis, one followup. the city of boston spent $4. million on interoperable communications yet you're still using 400 mega hertz. what's the plan and why? turn your mic on. >> excuse me, senator. the money that was youth lied was put into -- that was utilized was put into rebuilding the infrastructure that was there. to build on a new 800 frequency infrastructure would be much more expensive than that, as i understand it. i'm not an expert in this

field. i know we have looked at it very closely and the enormous amount of money that's necessary to -- this is a system that covers 2,000 square miles and it's -- it services about 11,000 emergency personnel in that area. >> are there plans to go to the higher frequency? >> that might be better directed at kurt as far as what's happening across the state. >> mr. schwartz? >> our first approach over the years to interoperability was to take all of our different systems, so we got v.h.f., u.h.f., 700, 800, and ensure we have regional plans and our systems can talk together. so we have interoperability as a huge success story, boston doesn't need to be on the 700 or 800 system to talk to the state police. we spent the money to figure out how to make them talk to each other and that works. now as we look at the

possibility of losing the t-band which will directly impact, we are building a core 700-00 system across the state and we expect that over the next 10 to 15 years, many of our partners will move, will migrate to the 700 and 800. >> all right, thank you. , of the tor sirina capabilities utilized in the boston bombings, which ones do you think are the most important in boston and are least developed in other cities? in other words, we've seen the stellar performance here, there's no question about it, that's great. those things that are important, what do you see least developed in other major cities? >> i may be a little biased

about boston. >> i was biased for you. so let's talk about what you see in the other cities. >> i think one of the things that is very positive in boston is the -- is the communication and i'm not talking the radios, i'm talking the fact that, you know, people are on a first name basis across, whether it's federal, state, local, in the medical community, the medical community has been linked in with public safety for years, not just since 2001, it actually goes back before that. in 2001 -- and 2001 help red inforce that some more. in the ability for the medical community, the medical public health and public safety community to link together and so people can understand the language of both groups. you don't see that in many places, it's absolutely essential that the medical community, the public safety and emergency management are on the same page. that's probably one thing, i think it's probably key and in boston it saved lives.

>> so you don't think that we're as well prepared in other cities in terms of including the medical community in these plans? >> i think it's an opportunity that's done very, very well in boston and can be replicated in other places. >> you can see all of this hearing about the boston bombings tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. and any time at c-span.org. we're going live to cambridge, massachusetts, where federal reserve chairman ben bernanke will speak to a group of national economic research about the history of the federal reserve, which was founded 100 years ago. chairman bernanke expected to speak shortly, first some introductory remarks. >> chairman bernanke, of course, needs no introduction but to the nber coud that have gathered here, i thought i would just mention ben's historical role in the nber and the many connection he is has to the nber summer institute and the monitor economics

program which host this is meeting today. ben is of course a past director of monitor economics program, also a member of the nber debating committee a past editor of the annual bombing -- is he annual research and the author of many working papers, including many of the most cited working painers in that time period. i was astonished when i looked at google scholar to discover there are five of ben's co-awe -- d or single author -authored or single authored working papers have 2,000 citations. those of you who follow google scholar know that that's a lot. we're delighted heck join us here today.

ben bernanke. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, jim. particularly that point about the lib lee yogfi. i'm still -- the bib lee yogfi. i'm -- the bibliography. i'm still working on it. i would like to thank the rganizers of the conference in recognition of the federal reserve chairman, we don't know if it's 1913 or 1914, but we know it's around now. i'm pleased to be here. in keeping with the spirit of my conference, my remarks will be primarily historical in nature but i will leave discussion of today's policy to today's question and answer period and next week i have the particular pleasure of testifying before congress so that will be another opportunity to discuss this -- to discuss these matters. so today, in my remarks, i'd like to discuss the evolution

over the past 100 years of three key aspects of federal reserve policymaking. the goals of policy, the policy framework, and accountability and communication. the changes over time in these three areas provide a useful perspective on how the role and functioning of the federal reserve has changed since its founding in 1913 as well as some lessoners in present and for the future. paying particular attention to several key episodes in the fed's history, all of which have been referred to in various contexts with the modifier great. the great depression, the great inflation, the great moderation, and the great recession. in the words of one of the authors of the federal reserve act, robert latham owen, the federal reserve was established to, quote, provide a means by which periodic panic which is

shape the american public and do enormous injury shall be stopped. in short the original goal was a great experiment that was the founding of the fed was the preservation of financial stability. at the time the standard view of panics is they were triggered when the needs of business an agriculture for liquid funds outstripped the available supply as when seasonal plantings or shipments of crops had to be financed and panics were further exars -- exacerbated by the tendency of banks and private individual -- individuals to horde liquidity in those times. the new institution was supposed to provide, quote, an elastic currency, by providing liquidity as needed to individual member banks to the discount window and the banks would then be able to accommodate their customers. although congressional advocates hopes the creethavings fed would help reduce future panics they

didn't embrace the idea that he fed should serve in ongoing panics as being the lend ore of last resort. they put limits on the federal reserve's ability to lend during panics. by limiting access to member banks. the method employed in the fed's early year reflected the influence of the so-called real bills doctrine as well as the fact that the united states was on the gold standard. in the framework of the real bills dock trip, the federal reserve saw its function as meeting the needs of business for liquidity. consistent with the idea of providen -- providing an elastic currency with the ultimate goal of providing economic and financial stability. when business activity was increase, the federal reserve helped accommodate the need for credit by supplying liquidity

to banks when business was contracting and when less credit was needed they reduced the liquidity in the system. as i mentioned the federal reserve pursued this policy a proach in the con thoveks gold standard. federal reserve notes were redeemable in gold on demand and the fed was required to maintain a gold reserve equal to 40% of its outstanding notes. however, contrary to the principles of an idealized gold standard, the federal reserve often took actions to prevent inflows and outflows of gold from being fully translated into changes in the domestic money supply. this practice, together with the size the u.s. economy, gave the federal se serve -- reserve considerable autonomy in monetary policy and in particular athroid fed to conduct policy according to the real bills doctrine without much hindrance. the policy framework of the feds' early years has been much criticized in retrospect. although the gold standard did not appear to have greatly

constrained u.s. monetary policy in the years after the feds' founding, subsequent research highlighted the extent to which the gold standard served to stabilize the economy in the late 1920's and early 1930's. likewise, economic historians pointed out that under the real bills doctrine, the fed increased the money supply at those times when business activity and upbard -- upward pressures on prices were strongest. so it was pro-cyclical. thus the fed's actions tended to increase rather than decrease the volatility in economic activity and prices. during this early period, the new central bank did make an important addition to its menu of policy tools. initially their main tulles -- tools were the quantity of lending through the discount window and the interest rate at which it lent, the discount rate. early on, however, to generate earnings to finance its operation the federal reserve

began purchasing government securities in the open market, what came to be known as open market operations. in the early 1920's, fed officials scored that these operations affected the supply and cost of bank reserves and consequently the terms on which banks extended credit to their customers. subsequently, of course, open market operations became a monetary policy tool and one that athroid fed to interact with the broader financial markets and not only with banks. i've discussed the original mandate and the policy framework of the early days of the fed. what about its accountability to the public in its governance? as this audience knows when the federal reserve was established, the question of whether it should be a private or public institution was highly contentious. the compromise solution created a hybrid. the system was headed by a governmentally appointed board which initially indelide secretary of the treasury and controler of the currency. but the 12 regional reserve

banks were placed under a mixture of public and private oversight including board members drawn from the private sector and they were given considerable scope to make policy decisions that applied to their own districts. freblings, reserve banks were permitted to set their own discouldn't rates subject to a minimum set by the board. while the founds of the federal reserve hoped that this new institution would provide financial and economic stability, the policy framework and the institutional structure would prove inadequate to the channels the fed would soon face. the great depression was the federal reserve's most difficult test. tragically, the fed failed to meet its mandate to maintain financial stability. in particular, though the fed provided substantial liquidity to the financial system following the 1929 stock market cash crash, its response to the subsequent banking panics was limited at best. the widespread banking failures and the collapse in money and

credit that ensued were major sources of the economic downturn. they lent freely at a rate in the face of panic had few adherents in that era. economists also identified a number of instances from the late 1920's to the early 1930's when federal reserve officials in the face of the sharp economic contradiction either tightened monetary policy or chose inaction. some historians traced these policy mistakes to the early death of benjamin strong, governor of the federal reserve bank of new york in 1928 which left the system without a leader. whether valid or not, this raises the hypothesis rays the question of what intellectual framework a leader would have used to develop a more activist monetary policy. the degree to which the gold standard constrained monetary

policy in the 1930's is debated but the gold standard philosophy did not encourage a highly expansionnary policies that were needed. the same can be said for the real bills doctrine which apparently led policymakers to conclude, on the basis of low nominal interest rates and low borrowing from the fed that monetary policy was appropriately supported and further actions would be fruitless. historians have noted the prevalence at the time of another counterproductive doctrine, the so-called liquidationist view that depressions perform a necessary cleansing function. it may be that the federal reserve suffered less from lack of leadership in the 1930's than where from the lack of intellectual framework for understanding what was happening and what needed to be done. the fed's inadequate policy frameworks collapsed under the weight of economic failures, new ideas, and political developments. the international gold standard

was abandoned in the 1930's. the real bills doctrine, likewise, losts pretidge after the dast oaf -- daster of the 1930's. for example, the banking act of 1935 instructed the federal reserve to use open market operations with consideration of, quote, the yen credit situation of the country, and not just to focus narrowly on short-term liquidity needs. the congress also expanded the fed's ability to provide credit through the discount window, allowing loans to a broader array of counterparties secured by a broader variety of collateral the experience of the great depression had major implications for all three aspects of the federal reserve i'm discussing here. its goals, its policy framework, and its accountability to the public. with respect to goal the high unemployment of the depression and the fear that high unemployment would return after world war ii elevated the maintenance of full employment as a goal of macroeconomic policy. the employment act of 1946 made

the promotion of employment a general objective of the federal government. although the fed didn't have a formal employment goal until the federal reserve reform act of 1977 codified maximum employment along with stable prices as part of the fed's so-called dual mandate, early legislation nunled the central bank in that direction. for example, legislators dezhribed intent of the banking act of 1935 as follows. quote, to increase the ability of the banking system to promote stability of employment and business insofar as this is possible within the scope of monetary action and credit administration. the policy framework to support this new approach reflebbed the developments of macroeconomic theories, including work of the new excel, erving fisher, dennis robertson and john maynard keynes that laid the foundation for how activity

could affect unemployment and reduce cyclical fluctuations. at the same time the federal reserve became less focusing on preserving stability because it felt it was superseded by the creation of the federal deposit insurance corporation and the securities and exchange commission along with other reforls intened to make the financial system more stable. in the area of foverpbance and accountability to the public, policymakers also recognized the immediate for reforms to improve the federal reserve's structure and its decision making. the banking act of 1935 simultaneous by bolstered the legal independence of the federal reserve and provided for stronger central control by the federal reserve board. in particular, the act created the modern configuration of the ederal market committee, the giving the board the majority of votes on the committee, while removing the secretary of

the treasury and comptroller of the currency from the board. in practice they continued to have considerable sway over monetary policy after 1933 with one economic historian describing the fed as, in the back seat. during world war ii, the federal reserve used its tools to support the war financing efforts. however, even after the war, federal reserve policy remained subject to considerable treasury influence. it was not until the 1951 accord with the treasury that the federal reserve began to recover genuine independence in setting monetary policy. once the federal reserve regained its policy independence, its goals centered on the price stability and employment objectives laid out in the employment act of 1946. in the early post-war decades, the fed used open market operations and the discount rate to influence short-term market insurance rates the federal funds emerged as the preferred operating target. low and stable inflation was

acleveland for most of the 1950's and early 1960's. however, beginning in the mid 1960's, inflation began a long climb upward, partly because policymakers proved to be too optimistic about the economy's ability to sustain rap growth without inflation. two mechanisms might have mitt gayed the damage from that mistaken optimism. first a stronger policy response to inflation, more like that observed in the 1950's, certainly would have helped. second, fed plcymakers could have reacted to continued high readings on inflation by adopting a more realistic assessment of the country's economic potential. instead, policymakers chose to emphasize so-called cost push and structural factors as sources of inflation and saw wages an price setting as having become incensivetive to economic slack. this contrasted sharply with

milton friedman's dictum that it's always an economic phenomenon, and led to price controls to address inflation. a further obstacle was the view that the gains from low inflation didn't justify the costs of achieving it. the consequences of the framework of the 1970's were two bouts of double digit inflation. moreover by the end of the tech cade, lack of commitment to controlling inflation had resulted in inflation expectations becoming unanchored with high estimates of trend inflation embedded in longer term interest rates. as you know an as we discussed earlier today, under the leadership of chairman paul volcker, the federal reserve in 1989 changed its fundamental approach to ensuring price stability. that was an important change in thinking by policymakers. federal reserve officials

increasingly sthepped view that inflation salmon tear phenomenon, at least in the immediate yalm an longer term. they became more alert to risks about the economy's potential output and placed renewed emphasis on the distinction between real, inflation adjusted, and nominal interest rates. the change in policy framework was initially charged -- tied to a change in operating procedures to put greater focus on growth and bank reserves. but the critical change, the willingness to respond more vigorously to inflation, endured after the federal reserve resumed traditional use of the federal funds rate as a policy institute. the new resiem reflecked an improved understanding of the importance of providing a firm anchor, secured by the credibility of the central bank for the private sector's inflation expectations. finally it entailed a changed view about the dual mandate in which they regarded the price

stability as providing the changes necessary to sustain aximum employment. voker's successful battle against in-- volcker's successful battle against inflation set the stage for a time when the federal reserve achieved considerable success in achieving the mandates. financial stability remained a goal but they monitored threats to financial stability and respond when the financial system was upset by events such as the 19 7 stock market crash and the terrorist attacks of 2001. more routinely, it shared supervisory duties worepanking agencies. nevertheless, for the most part, financial stability did not figure prominently in monetary policy discussions to bring -- through these years. it is clear that macroeconomists inside and outside central banks relied too heavily on that period on

variants of the miller theorem, an implication of which is that the dethifles structure of the financeable system can be ignored when analyzing the broader behavior of the economy. an important development of the great moderation was the increasing emphasis in central banks around the world on communication and transparency. as economists and policymakers creatured -- reached consensus on the value of communication in obtaining monetary policy objectives. federal reserve officials like those at other central banks had traditionally been highly guarded in their public pronouncements. they believed that the ability to take markets by surprise was important for influencing financial conditions. thus, although fed policymakers of the 1980's and early 1990's had become somewhat more explicit about policy objectives an strategy, the same degree of transparency was not forthcoming on monetary policy decisions and operates. the release of a post-meeting

statement by the f1c, a practice that began in 1984, was a watershed. other time the announcement was expanded to include reasons and a statement of the balance of risks. in addition to improving the effectiveness of monetary policy, it changed the public accountability of the federal reserve. accountability is esen frble for independence in a democracy. during this period, economists found considerable evidence that central bans that are afforded policy independence in pursuit of their man cated objectives deliver better economic outcomes. one cannot look back today at the great moderation without asking whether sustained economic stability of that period somehow promoted the excessive risk taking that followed. the idea that this long period of calm lulled investors, financial firms and financial

regulators into paying insufficient attention to building risks must have some truth in it. i don't think we should conclude that we should not strive to achieve economic stability. rather, the right conclusion is that even in or perhaps especially in stable and prosperous times, monetary policymakers and financial regulators should regard safeguarding financial stability to be of equal importance, indeed a necessary prerequisite for, maintaining macroeconomic stability. macroeconomists and historians will continue to debate the sources of the remarkable economic performance during the great moderation. my own view is that the improvements in monetary policy and monetary policy communications including the better management of inflation an the anchoring of inflation expectations were important reasoners in strong performance. however, we have learned in recren years that while well managed monetary policy may be

necessary for economic stability, it is not sufficient. so, it's been now some six years or so since the first signs of the financial crisis appeared in the united states and we are still working to achieve a full recovery from its effects. what lessons should we take for the future from this experience, particularly in the context of a century of federal reserve history. -- history? the financial crisis and the ensuing great depression re-session reminded office a lesson we learned in the 19th century and the depression but had forgotten to some extent which is that severe financial instability can do grave damage to the broader economy. the implication is that a central bank must take into account risk to financial stability if it is to help achieve good macroeconomic performance. today, the federal reserve sees its responsibility for the maintenance of financial stability as co-equal with its management for the responsibility of the

management of monetary policy and we have made substantial institutional changes in recognition of this change in goals. in a sense, we have come full circle back to the original goal of the federal reserve of preventing financial panics. how should a central bank enhance financial stability? one means is by assuming the lender of last resort function described 140 years ago under which the central bank uses its powers to provide liquidity to ease market conditions during periods of panic or incipient panic. the fed's many liquidity programs played a central role in containing the cry soifs 2008 to 2009. however, putting out the fire is not enough. it's also porn to fost aerofinancial system that is sufficiently resis -- resilient to withstand financial shocks. to that end, the federal reserve together with other regulatory agencies and the financial stability oversight

council is engamed in monitoring developments and working to strengthen financial constitutions and markets. the reliance on stronger regulation is informed by the success of new deal regulatory reform bus current reform efforts go even further by working to identify and reduce risks not only for individual firms but to the financial system as a whole, an approach known as macroregulation. financial stability is also linked to monetary policy though these links are not yet fully understood. here the fed's evolving strategy is to make monitoring supervision and regulation the first line of defense against systemic risks. to the extent that risks remain, we strive to incorporate these risks in the cost benefitable sis supplied to all -- aflide all monetary policy actions. what about the monetary policy framework? in general, the federal reserve's policy framework today inherits many of the elements put in place during

the great moderation. these features include the emphasis on preserving the fed's inflation credibility, critical for anchoring expectations and a plansed approach to pursuing both parts of the fed's dual mandate in the medium term. we have continued to increase the transparency of monetary policy. for example, the committee's communications framework includes a statement of its longer run goals and monetary policy strategy. in that statement, the committee said a rate of inflation of 2% as measured by the cop sumer price index is most consistent with the dual mandate. participants also regularly provide estimates of the longer run rate of unemployment. hey have a tendency of 5.2% to 0.6% this transpanchecy gives the federal reserve greater

flexibility to respond to short run developments. this framework, which combines short run policy flexibility with the discipline provided by the announced targets has been described as constrained discretion. other communications innovations include early publications of the minutes of the meetings and quarterly post-meeting press conference tpwhiss chairman. the framework for implementing monetary policy has evolved further in recent years, reflecting advances in economic thinking and a changing policy environment. notably, following the ideas of laura svenson and other the f1c has moved toward a framework that ties settings to the economic outlook a so-called forecast based approach. it has released more detailed statements following meetings that have related the outlook for policy to economic developments and introduced regular summaries to economic

projections of participants including for the target federal funds rate. the provision of additional information about policy plans has helped fed policymakers teal with the constraint posed by the effective lower bound on short-term interest rates. in particular by offering guidance on how policy will respond to economic development the committee has been able to increase policy accommodation even when the short-term interest rate is theer zero and could not be meaningfully reduced further. the me has also sought to influence interest rates notably through its securities purchase. other central banks an advanced economies also confronted with the effective lower bound and short-term interest rates have taken similar measures. in short, the recent crisis has underscored the need to strengthen monetary policy and financial stability frameworks and better integrate the two. we have made progress on both so counts but more needs to be done. particular, the

relationships between policies including lener of last resort policy and standard monetary policy are evident. both research and experience are needed to help the fed and other central banks develop comprehensive frameworks that incorporate all these elements. the broader conclusion is what might be described as the overriding lesson of the federal reserve's history. a central banking doctrine and practice are never static. we and other central banks around the world will have to continue to work hard to adapt to events, new ideas, and to changes in the economic and financial environment. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. let me remind the audience that

we will have -- there are index cards available, we have collected some from people, we'll have folks walking through the aisles, if you would like to try to submit a question, write the question, we'll try to bring some of those up to ask what we can system of chairman, you indicated your willingness to talk about current situation as well as the 100-year question. i thought i'd like to start by just asking ask you a little bit about the last six weeks. you laid , last month out a cob tin gent plan about asset purchases a numb of pundits have criticized this step, said it was premature for you to discuss future contingencies at this point. with the benefit of hindsight, would you do anything differently if you had that step to take again? mr. thank you for that question. --

>> thank you for that question. as i said in my remarks i'm a big believer, the federal reserve is a big believer in transparency and communication. i think transparency in central banking is like truth telling in everyday life. you've got to be consistent about it, not opportunistic about it. i think if you think about the recent developments and the information we provided to the public about our thinking, i guess i would ask you to consider the counterfactual, we hadn't said anything. the information we provided about, for example, our contingent data dependent planners in asset purchase program for pretty close to our understanding of what markets expected for that program. but suppose we said nothing and time had passed and market perceptions had drifted away from our own thinking and our own expectations for policy. addition, during that time,

again in the counterfactual, it's very likely that more highly levered risk-taking positions might build up, reflecting again some pectation of an infinite asset purchase program. o i guess i would suggest that not withstanding the volatile till we have seen in the last six weeks, that speaking now, explaining what we're doing, may have avoided a much manufacturer difficult situation at another time. >> continuing on that teem, the financial markets reacted sharply to some combination of your remarks and the release of the minutes last month. the market seems to have interpreted the combination of those two pieces of information as hawkish news. would that be the right interpretation to put on those eleases?

>> let me start with basics. the federal reserve, not everybody likes it, but i think it's good, they have a dual mandate, to pursue maximum employment and price stability. currently we have an unemployment rate of 7.6% which i think if anything overstates the health of our labor markets, given participation rates and many other indicators of underemployment and long-term unemployment. so we're not there, obviously, on the maximum employment part of the mandate. on price stability, inflation is now about 1% which is low -- below our 2% objective system of both sides of our mandate, both the employment side and the inflation side are saying that we need to be more accommodating. moreover, the other portion of macroeconomic policy, fiscal policy, is now actually quite restrictive. the c.b.o. estimates that

current federal fiscal policy is subtracting 1.5 percentage points of growth from the u.s. economy this year. put that all together, i think you can only conclude that highly am acome dative monetary policy for the foreseeable future is what's needed in the u.s. economy. now, how does that relate to recent communications? i think the issue has to do with not so much with the overall accommodation but rather with the mix of instruments being used to provide that kay dom -- accommodation. the fed has two instruments we've been using in the context of interest rates close to the zero lower bound. the first asset purchase, we have thought about and i frequently described as providing some near-term momentum to the economy. in other words, we have said that we are trying to achieve a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market in the context of price stability.

we made progress on that but still have further to go. again, that's the object thoif asset purchases is po provide near-term momentum to get the economy moving forward more quickly. the second tool that we have is our rate policy, short-term interest rates, and associated with that is the forward guidance we provided to the public about our expectations for when rates might change. in particular, we said that we will not raise interest rates until -- at least until unemployment hits 6.5% as long as inflation is well behaved. again, i think as i said before that the 6.5% is a threshold, not a trigger, there will not be an automatic increase in interest rates when unemployment hits 6.5%. instead, that's a time to think about the situation anew. given the weak thovepbs labor market, the fact that the unemployment rate probably

understays the weakness of the labor market, given where inflation is i would suspect that it may be well some time after we hit 6.5% before rates reach any significant level. again, the overall message is accommodation, there is some perspective, gradual and possible change in the mix of instruments, but that shouldn't be confused with the overall thrust of policy, which is highly accommodative. in that -- >> that -- in that veen could you comment on the fed's outlook on the economy? many would argue the fed is optimistic compared to many in the private sectoror. >> i think we're somewhat optimistic. some of the material we've published are more optimistic than some forecasters. i think a fair viewing of the economy would suggest that there are some positive features out there, some

positive developments, but there are also some significant risks we have to continue to play close -- to pay close attention to. on the positive side, i think you want to start with the housing sector, which has been of course a major drag on our economy for quite a few years and only in the last year or so has it begun to turn around. and show some strength which has implications both for construction, for related industries, and also for house prices which affect household balance sheets. automobiles are also strong so i take that as evidence, that monetary policy is working because those are two of the main channels through which monetary policy affects the economy. i think a second positive factor i would point to is the state of the american household. while there's still many great difficulties, households in the united states have deleveraged quite a bit, debt and interest burdens are down, their wealth is up with house prices and equity prices and other asset

pries having increased. employment gains mean more income. and sentiment is accordingly much higher. so i think we have a somewhat stronger household sector going forward. and then finally, i would just note, maybe not finally, but i would note that the fact that our economy has continued to grow and produce jobs in the face of very strong fiscal head winds is somewhat encouraging, i think. there are other factors as well, including reduced fiscal restriction at the state and local level, relatively strong banking system which is provide manager credit and a variety of other factors. there are some things i think that make the outlook look more positive. but there are also some risks which i think are very important for us as policymakers to look at. first, it's still early to say that we have weathered the fiscal restraint. i think it's very difficult to

know how long the lags are between congressional decisions and actual spending and production decisions so we're going to continue to watch and see whether growth is resilient going forward for the rest of the year, our projections are there will be some pickup in growth, but that does depend on overcoming the remainder of the fiscal head winds. second point which is worth stressing and i see my good friend jim bullard is here, is the very low inflation rate. we are all very much committed to defending our inflation target from the -- from below as well as from above. low inflation, i know everyone, it's hard to explain to your uncle, i know, but low inflation is not good for the economy. very low inflation increases risks of deflation which can cause an economy to stagnate. it raises the real cost of

investing. and the evidence is that falling and low inflation can be very bad for an economy. 10 the federal reserve is trying to keep inflation close to 2%. we think that there are some transer to factors at work which have brought inflation down a bit more than is fundamentally the case in some sense. we expect inflation to come back up. but if that's not the case, i think we have to say that that would be a good reason to remain accommodative and try to achieve that objective. and i guess the final thing i would say in terms of risks, of course is that we have seen some tightening of financial conditions and that if, as i said, and as i said in my press conference and other places, that if financial conditions were to tighten to the extent that they jeopardize the achievement of our inflation

and employment objectives, then we have to push back against that. i think there are some risks now that we have to pay attention to but i think it's also the case that there are some positive factors that with some luck will generate somewhat faster growth and continued improvement in labor market conditions for the remainder of this year and into next year. >> question that comes back to the issues around communication and messaging you talked about. the fed has introduced a numb of new communication toolers of the course of your tenure. are these changes all perm nept? or are there some elements of these new tool strategy that are extraordinary policy that reflect the extraordinary times we're in particularly when dealing with the zero lower bound? >> i think most of the things we have done will likely be permanent. not, of course a future committee might decide to make changes to our projections or

changes to the way we structure our minutes or other things that could certainly could happen. i think that, you know, the definition of price stability and the longer run policy strategy, i'm hopeful that that will be a long-lasting innovation. the communications that are specifically related to the zero lower bound are particularly the forward guidance where we have tried to provide not targets, not objectives, but rather guide posts to help the markets understand and the public understand, you know, when we expect policy to begin to change. it may be that when we leave the zero lower bound and when the economy is in a more normal configuration that that kind of guidance won't be necessary anymore. because as was the case prior to the crisis, the markets can just look at the behavior of

the fed and essentially extrapolate that behavior to understand what the fed is likely to do as the economy evolves. that being said, there may be circumstances where this kind i uidance is helpful and just note -- the federal reserve was not the first to use this kind of guidance. e bank ofa pan, bank of -- the bank of japan, the bank of china experimented with these types of ideas as well. i think it's becoming an international practice that -- to various degrees, in various places but i suspect we'll see its use in some context at least going forward. but i don't think it's necessarily a permanent part of federal reserve policy precisely because we will be moving away from the zero lower bound and i hope in a reasonable period of time we'll be in a more normal monetary

environment. >> on that international theme, you talked about the tripartite roles of lender of last resort -- lend over last resort and other poll circumstances the regulatory policies are done by an organization which is not the central bank. do you see a trong case for bringing that role inside the central bank? or can you see circumstances in which it works to have the macroprue ten rble part in a distinct organization? >> well, different countries have different financial structures but as you look around the world, the trend now, of course, is for financial regulatory activities, financial oversight activities to move back into central banks. it's happening in europe, it's happening in the u.k. it's happening in the united states. and i think there's good reason

for that. one very simple reason is that central banks tend of the kind of expertise in financial markets and so on that gives them a comparative advantage in addressing these issues. there's the fact that the central intank the lend over last resort and there's complement tearity of that lender of last resort function and supervision of individual firms. then i think generally there is a macroprudential innovation that there is much more attention being paid to the broader financial system as opposed to the stability of individual institutions alone. we do both. we pay attention of course to individual institutions but we also try to think about the stability of the financial system as a whole. i think the central bank is uniquely equipped to have that breadth of vision and to think

about how that stability of the financial system relates to its other functions, particularly as you menged, lender of last resort and monetary policy. i think there's a good case for it. there are differing institutional arrangements that can be worked out. in the united states, of course, the fed has got authority over bank holding companies and systemically important firms, which means we have a pretty good insight into the largest firms, but we share supervisory authorities in banking and financial markets with a range of other agencies and of course we work collaboratively with those agencies work each agency developing its comparative advantage in a particular part of the system it's assigned. >> a number of years ago you referred to a savings glut. today there are many who think there's a shortage of safe assets in the tpwhrobal economy. is that a view that you would agree with? and if you do, is it something

the fed should or can do anything about? >> well, on the saving glut, i would like to mention that there were a number of speakers today who talked about going back to carmen -- going back to carmen reinhart, who talked about the role of precipitating the crisis. this is one of the things that have a theme of my commem tear before the crisis, which was the idea that the capital inflows we were seeing related of course to our large trade deficit but also to the international demand for dollar reserves, was in fact potentially destabilizing factor and certainly was in any case making financial onditions easier than they otherwise would have been. more recent work with co-authors of the federal reserve looking at the european-u.s. relationship, even though there was much more balanced trade between the u.s. and europe, there were blarge

inflows from europe to the united states which again were you and for safe access if will -- safe assets if you will, which at the time there being an insufficiency of safe assets in the view of many people that wall street was in some sense trying to construct safe assets through securitization and traumplinging. we know that didn't -- and traunching. we know that didn't work out so well. there are some issues with safe assets. in that besides collateral, you know, we have potentially increased liquidity requirements, increased margin requirements, and that may create some pressure on supply of safe assets. at the same time, we have debt issues in some parts of the world which retchice supply of safe assets. i think there's an interesting and important question, one we have -- one we have discussed at the federal reserve. i would say that i do not think

that our asset purchase programs are having a sig cabot effect on that ply-demand balance an the reason is, the very simple point that when we buy assets and our total purchases, by the way, are a small share of the global amount of state's assets but when we buy states' assets we pay for them with bank reserves, another safe asset and one that's even more liquid. i don't think our asset purchases are significantly affecting the net supply of safe assets. put it's an issue we've looked at in margining and liquidity policy. . >> in the last five years, the fed has navigated a mine field of taking actions that were at the edge of traditional fed policy, sometimes g